Monday night, as promised, we still have some catch up work to do. So let’s start with those Amazon Taxes, those Internet sales taxes of dubious Constitutionality. Colorado’s got tossed in federal court and Illinois’s didn’t raise any money. Obeying the Constitution counts, folks. Pass a true interstate compact through the Congress first.

Also as promised, there’s the matter of the Next Generation Television Marketplace Act. This is the one where ACU has come out against Jim DeMint, and that caught my attention. I have to side with the bill DeMint is sponsoring. I think ACU simply misunderstood what’s at stake here and had good intentions, but the excessive complexity of the regulations defeated them here.

The bill does not let cable providers become free riders, retransmitting others’ streams for free. It just stops the law from trying to dictate the parameters of the negotiations on retransmissions. I see no harm in that, and potentially much good.

Read More →

Monday night, as promised, we still have some catch up work to do. So let’s start with those Amazon Taxes, those Internet sales taxes of dubious Constitutionality. Colorado’s got tossed in federal court and Illinois’s didn’t raise any money. Obeying the Constitution counts, folks. Pass a true interstate compact through the Congress first.

Also as promised, there’s the matter of the Next Generation Television Marketplace Act. This is the one where ACU has come out against Jim DeMint, and that caught my attention. I have to side with the bill DeMint is sponsoring. I think ACU simply misunderstood what’s at stake here and had good intentions, but the excessive complexity of the regulations defeated them here.

The bill does not let cable providers become free riders, retransmitting others’ streams for free. It just stops the law from trying to dictate the parameters of the negotiations on retransmissions. I see no harm in that, and potentially much good.

Read More →

For those of you reading my diaries on the 2012 and 2014 U.S. Senate predictions, you’ll note how I hinted that the entire November 2012 Presidential Elections could come down to a single state like Colorado or Iowa, which are my two best guesses based on this hypothetical electoral map of how I honestly think the election would go if held today.

Don’t just take my word for it. Liberal Democratic loyalist/activist pundits from former House Majority Leader Dick Gephardt, James Carville, and Joe Trippi have told CNN and Fox News hosts recently they all believe (in separate interviews) that the election “will be close” and that “We aren’t going to see a repeat of 2008.” This hypothetical of my map shows how close it could be.

Colorado is the key?

Republicans and presisely Mitt Romney would be wise to focus on Colorado in particular.

Why Colorado? They just have 9 Electoral Votes.

Why not?

• Lets look first at their Presidential history: 8 of the past 10 Presidential Elections the Rocky Mountain State has voted for the Republican.

• Next, there are some positive signs for the GOP,  following the new re-districting, mainly in CO CD-02.

• 4 of Colorado’s 7 U.S. Representatives are Republican. While this may not seem like much, two came in the 2010 wave and this delegation is considered “young” and “new” by incumbancy standards across the board with the longest tenured Representative being a Democrat in the 1st district that only goes back to 1997.

• True, their Governor may be a liberal (and frankly a wierd) Democrat, and both their U.S. Senators may be Democrats, but Colorado has had a long history of splitting their Senate seats between party, so I don’t see this trend continuing much longer.

• Colorado’s state legislature is split with Republicans just re-taking the House with a 6 seat gain in 2010, compare that to Nevada where the state House and Senate are under Democratic control, given their Governor Brian Sandoval, is a young, upcoming conservative and probable future Senator someday (if that happens, you heard it here first).

We aren’t talking a hopelessly lost state like California or tree-hugging, eco-freak Washington or Oregon. We are talking a good, sensible, mountain-West state with decent, All-American, 2nd Amendment people that could very well swing.

But why Colorado of all states, you still ask.

Not only do I know several people personally that have relocated to Colorado over the years, none of which would be considered overtly liberal (giving me hope), but if you look at the map and do the math, if we capture this state, we could capture the entire election.

Consider that under my map above:

Obama could still win heavily-Hispanic Nevada (6 Electoral votes) and New Mexico (5 Electoral votes) along with progressive Iowa (6 electoral votes) that launched Obam’s campaign in 2008 and re-itterated it in November by going blue, and still lose the Presidency.

But what about Iowa?

Because Iowa legalized gay marriage (although the three justices that overturned the state law have since been thrown out), and because they voted for Obama and launched his campaign, I see them trending blue and therefore would take my chances on Colorado.

Now, if Romney and Republicans are smart, they will not put all their eggs in Colorado’s basket because the last thing you want is a few undecided states left on the board, all of which have to fall a certain way, and if they don’t, Obama gets re-elected.

No, it would be better to try and be competative in all states since you never know what could happen, nor which one could tip the scales back in our favor ala 2000 or 2004. All I am saying is my personal guess is Colorado and if that happens, you heard it here first and I will be happy to explain my theory on air when the time is right.

No Margin for Error under “Colorado plan”

Under my plan, Romney would have to sweep the South as in, win all 13 former states of the Confederacy (Missouri and Kentucky had stars reserved but split alliances, I know). This would of course include New South North Carolina and annoyingly progressive Virginia with their DC Northern Virginia suburbs. This would also include the ever diverse and Southern-in-geography-only (South of Jacksonville): Florida.

If ceding Iowa, Nevada, and New Mexico to the Democrats and Obama, under this scenario, Romney and the Republicans would also have to win Ohio and Indiana (and take the rest of the usual states with no surprises).

If he does that, he’s got it.

Romney would end up becoming our 45th President with 276 Electoral Votes to 262 for Obama. Otherwise, as I have it now, Obama squeaks by with 271 Electoral Votes to 267 for Romney.

 But why not New Mexico? Nevada?

Those of you may wonder why not these two states?

Not only does Nevada have Heathen arm-pit Las Vegas, but their new House seat in NV CD-O4 is projected to go to the Democrats albeit in a close race. Additionally, there is no guarantee Dean Heller will hold on to his Senate seat in a race against carpetbagger-New Yorker Shelley Berkley who moved to the state 45 years ago yet never could drop her native (ugly) Brooklyn accent.

Finally, with the way unions bailed out Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in 2010 after seemingly losing his seat in a landslide, and the ever growing number of Democratic Hispanics, I basically have no hopes for this state anymore at least outside of that Senate race and the two “safe” Republican House seats.

Along those lines, add New Mexico to the mix which actually increased its state Democratic Senate majority in 2010 and already had a Democratic state Senate majority and this state is obviously trending bluer thanks to immigration. New Mexico, barring some unforseen Governor Martinez “Queen-making”-political pull, is a lost cause for Republicans electorally, at least at the moment.

Conclusion: yes it could come down to a single state like 2000, only this time with Iowa, Nevada, New Mexico, or Colorado, but given the above facts, go with Colorado, and hope for the best.

In a future diary, I’ll write how a Romney-VP Gov. Chris Christie ticket, given Christie could swing New Jersey red, could mean Republicans don’t have to win Ohio to get the White House if they follow the above “Colorado plan”.

 (But more likely would mean they don’t need NV, NM, CO, IA, or even precariously lavender-turning AZ if you can believe it, matematically).

Dr. Daniel Fine of the New Mexico Center for Energy Policy discusses North Carolina’s approach to shale gas and hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking.” Fine offered these comments during a Feb. 27, 2012, presentation to the John Locke Foundation’s Shafesbury Society. Video courtesy of CarolinaJournal.tv. Watch full-length video of JLF events here:

Dr. Daniel Fine discusses North Carolina’s approach to shale gas and hydraulic fracturing and takes on the enviromentalists (two minutes)—
http://youtu.be/4Lbn9diK1PA
The full one hour video can be seen here–>”North Carolina?s approach to natural gas fracking” —>http://lockerroom.johnlocke.org/2012/02/27/north-carolinas-approach-to-natural-gas-fracking/

Dr. Daniel I. Fine works with the New Mexico Center for Energy Policy. He is a longtime research associate at the Mining and Minerals Resources Institute, MIT. Fine is also a policy adviser on nonconventional oil and gas. He is co-editor of Resource War in 3-D: Dependence, Diplomacy and Defense, and has contributed to Business Week, the Engineering and Mining Journal and the Washington Times. Fine has testified on strategic natural resources before the U.S. Senate committees on Foreign Affairs and Energy and Natural Resources. In this speech, he discusses “Shale Gas Wars: From Pennsylvania to North Carolina.”

The John Locke Foundation and the Jesse Helms Center
Cordially invites you to

a meeting of the Shaftesbury Society

with our special guest

Dr. Daniel I. Fine

- Research Associate – Mining and Minerals Resources Institute, MIT

“Shale Gas Wars: From Pennsylvania to North Carolina.”

Monday, February 27, 2012
12:00 pm Noon

John Locke Foundation, 200 W. Morgan Street, Raleigh, NC 27601

Price: $10.00

Dr. Daniel Fine is a Research Associate at the Mining and Minerals Resources Institute, MIT. Dr. Fine is also a current Policy Adviser on Non-Conventional Oil and Gas. He is co-editor of Resource War in 3-D: Dependence, Diplomacy and Defense, and has contributed to Business Week, the Engineering and Mining Journal and the Washington Times. Dr. Fine participated in the Atlantic Council Workshop on Central Asian Policy and the Hudson Institute Russia-United States Relations Project. He has given testimony on strategic natural resources before the U.S. Senate Committees on Foreign Affairs and the Energy and Natural Resources. Dr. Fine was a member of the Domestic Energy Production Issue Team of the Center For The Study Of The Presidency and Congress “Strengthening America’s Future Initiative.” He has participated as a panelist on energy public policy at the Rocky Mountain Global New Energy Summit.

Shaftesbury Luncheon talks are free and open to the public. An optional lunch is available for purchase at the event, or participants may brown bag a lunch if they choose.

Purchase Tickets for this Event Online

http://www.johnlocke.org/events/event.html?id=971

The political scene is packed with pundits and predictors who despite being wrong most of the time don’t pause their endless flow of predictions across the media waves, which unfortunately influence the votes of many Americans who tune in to the news for a couple of minutes a day and form their decision based on their meaningless gibberish.

An overwhelming majority of these pundits have pounced upon Rick Santorum as incapable of going forward immediately after his stunning Iowa victory. Did their declarations come after having foretold the Santorum victory for months and weeks prior to the Iowa caucus? Quite the contrary; these political pundits actually foretold Santorum would come in somewhere towards the bottom and would drop out right after Iowa. Despite the results having been the polar opposite of their punditry, they continued to spew their worthless predictions.

Overblown egos had led to bold-faced demands to Santorum he should drop out of the race in the hope it would boost Newt’s campaign, despite no proof that such action would yield their wished-for results. To their utter disappointment Senator Santorum hadn’t accepted their lovely advice and just look at the mess they have now landed in, face-down! Rick Santorum has won Minnesota and Missouri with landslide victories!

In Missouri, Santorum won with 55.2% while Romney came in a full thirty points behind Rick at 25.3%. In Minnesota, a state Romney won in 2008, with 88% precincts counted, Santorum won with 45%, Paul came in a distant second with 27.1% while Romney squeaked in at third with merely 16.9% of the votes. To top off the night-turned-morning, Santorum surprised everyone with an unexpected sweep in Colorado, another state Romney had won in 2008 and which he was expected to win once again. Santorum won with 40.2% while Romney received 34.9%. His victory in Colorado has brought the total states he’s won to four out of eight, while Romney won three and Newt won one.

Who is Rick Santorum?

Rick Santorum grew up near the coal mines in Pennsylvania where his grandfather was a miner and understands the struggles of the everyday American. He served in the Congress for a total of 16 years, first two terms in the House and then twelve years as a Senator. As a freshman Congressman, Santorum was shocked at the level of corruption amongst both parties specifically in relation to the housing market, and together with six other Congressman, brought the information out to the public. They were dubbed the “Gang of Seven” for their courage, honesty, and refusal to let matters continue to slide downhill.

Rick Santorum is the only one, of the candidates left standing, who can and does provide a clear contrast to Barack Obama on all the major issues.

He has never bought into the nonsense named Global Warming. Despite having hailed from a liberal state, he opposed overbearing government regulation and intervention which were deemed crucial to the safety of the planet based on those bogus facts. He has also opposed government bailouts including TARP from the very beginning, and not simply when campaigning as a Tea Party Conservative. During the 1990’s, when many conservatives including Newt and Romney championed for health care mandates, Rick Santorum had stood up in Congress and denounced the concept of government mandates, arguing for the rights of each individual to make their own decisions.

Santorum is also the only candidate who has never wavered on family values no matter who the audience was or what was at stake. He had his very name disgraced because of his strong conservative social views and risked his career defending the lives of the unborn. One can actually credit his fearless defense of conservatism for causing his loss in 2006 since the Democrat’s turned their entire arsenal at him precisely because of his constant outspoken championship of conservatism. Yet, he hasn’t backed down or regretted taking a stand for conservatism. Quite the contrary, he continues to do so with his head held high.

In short, Rick Santorum is a proud representative of the conservative viewpoint on all major issues we wish to challenge Barack Obama including Obama’s trademark legislations – Obamacare, government bailouts, government takeovers, and Cap & Trade. Santorum also provides a clear contrast to Obama’s endless choking environmental regulation, stifling energy policies including the denial for the Keystone Pipeline, first-class insulter of our allies and apologist to our enemies.

This is the case, and would be so, even if he wouldn’t have won with landslide victories this night. His victories, though, highlight the strong positives he brings to the table, since he focused throughout his campaign strictly on substance and the issues.

It just so happens to be that Rick Santorum is also the only candidate currently in this race who is a conservative and has remained staunchly loyal to conservatism during his representation of the purple/blue state of Pennsylvania. We can therefore be confident with a President Santorum that he won’t engage in any rash moves which will contradict conservative principles even if he will come under extreme pressure and badmouthing of the Democrats. He’s already been there and remained rock strong in defense of conservative values.

Obama’s entire three years has been an endless play of pitting poor against rich, ethnic groups against one another and so forth. With Rick Santorum on the Republican ballot, his fight against the rich will fall flat, for Obama’s income exceeds that of Rick Santorum’s. Additionally, Santorum’s amazing ability to unite with average blue-collar hardworking Americans, as he’s proven repeatedly in liberal Pennsylvania, will help him carry the crucial swing-states one must win in a presidential election. He’s won Iowa in the primary and can carry it in the general, and is polling best against Obama in the important swing-state Ohio. He is also the only one on the Republican side who can make Pennsylvania turn red again after having gone blue in every election since 1988. He is also polling extremely well in many other crucial swing states.

Yes, Santorum has lost his reelection in 2006 in Pennsylvania, but he has also won two statewide elections, in 1994 and 2000, despite PA having gone blue in every presidential contest since 1988. Santorum’s strong support for Bush’s War on Terror was a major cause for his loss, for anti-war protests were reaching its peak.

There’s still a long road ahead, although a clear shift has taken place this night. Santorum ran on a conservative platform and has shown that conservatism is quite popular amongst Americans across all spectrums. He has also proven capable of winning the heartland of America including swing states which are crucial in the general election. We may still look back at this night as the turning point in the primary in more ways than just one.

Abie Rubin blogs at The Thinking Voter and can be followed on Twitter.

With a hat tip to Jim Geraghty we can see just how bad it is for Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats right now.

John Salazar, Congressman from Colorado, is being attacked for voting 97% of the time with Nancy Pelosi. NINETY-SEVEN PERCENT.

His Republican challenger, Scott Tipton, is tied with Salazar in a race that two years ago Mr. Salazar walked away with.

So how does John Salazar interpret voting NINETY-SEVEN PERCENT of the time with Nancy Pelosi?

“I’ve never voted with Nancy Pelosi,” Mr. Salazar says, adding that “every vote I’ve taken” has been with and for his constituents.

Liar, liar, pants on fire.

With a hat tip to Jim Geraghty we can see just how bad it is for Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats right now.

John Salazar, Congressman from Colorado, is being attacked for voting 97% of the time with Nancy Pelosi. NINETY-SEVEN PERCENT.

His Republican challenger, Scott Tipton, is tied with Salazar in a race that two years ago Mr. Salazar walked away with.

So how does John Salazar interpret voting NINETY-SEVEN PERCENT of the time with Nancy Pelosi?

“I’ve never voted with Nancy Pelosi,” Mr. Salazar says, adding that “every vote I’ve taken” has been with and for his constituents.

Liar, liar, pants on fire.

I received my Colorado Primary ballot in the mail yesterday and on it is an interesting additional item from the City of Alamosa.

Question 2A:

Shall City of Alamosa Ordinance Number 4-2010, which authorized the execution and delivery of a lease purchase and sublease agreement and other documents and actions in connection with financing the City’s municipal complex project without raising taxes or instituting any new tax, become effective?

So, why should anyone outside of Alamosa care? Let me give you a little background.

The current city hall is also the local library and the main location for the Alamosa Fire Department. The building has a couple of problems. First of all, it’s too small for the needs of the city. Second, the city would like to expand the library but there isn’t room in the current building. Third, the city council chambers are too small to hold the crowds they get when controversial items are discussed and it’s not ADA compliant. (The chambers are on the second floor with no elevator in the building.) There is definitely a need for something to be done.

In fact, the city has several options. The first is to build a new municipal complex. Second, the city could use an building that has been vacant since K-Mart closed. Third, the city could take over one the elementary school building that are about to become obsolete with the completion of a new school complex. The city council choose the first option.

The city’s choice wasn’t especially popular but it wasn’t the choice itself as much as how it was financed. Here’s how the opposition group, Alamosa Has Options, describes the deal.

The City of Alamosa is using a “loophole” discovered by a very smart attorney some time back, to use Certificates of Participation (see bottom of document for actual definition) to fund items without having to ASK the people in a vote, if they want to incur the debt.

Basically what happens is the city sets up a DUMMY CORPORATION, which then borrows money to finance the project. The City has to pay back the corporation from money from the existing budget, resulting in cuts of city services. The corporation then has to repay the lenders or certificate holders who initially lent the money.

This violates the spirit, if not the text of TABOR and the $700,000 per year payments on the lease will certainly impact the city. That brings us back to the ballot question.

You see, when the citizens of Alamosa saw what the city council did, the exercised a rarely used provision in the city charter that allows a citizens to file a petition to bring the ordinance before the voters. The petition was certified and the question was put on the primary ballot.

So, why should anyone outside of Alamosa care? Simple. This is a perfect example of why legislation should be done as close to the people as possible and why Federalism works. When legislators at the city or county level pass legislation, the voters of those localities can overrule the legislature. That also true of most states. It provides a direct check on the governments. Any legislature that tries to legislate against the will of the people run the risk of that legislation being overruled by the people. That’s not an option at the Federal level.

There is nothing the people can do directly to overturn Federal legislation. At most, citizens can throw out the Congressmen who passed the legislation in the first place. That can be a relatively quick change in the House but it takes a long time to turn over the Presidency and the Senate. Even then, there’s no guarantee that those who were elected will overturn the law. That’s especially true if the offensive law gives the government more power and/or sets up a new entitlement.

Americans need to start electing legislators who will not just repeal ObamaCare; they need to elect people who will start repealing almost all Federal laws. If the people of a state want burdensome taxes to pay for an ever increasing welfare state, they are welcome to vote for one in their state. The rest of us will enjoy our prosperity.

Originally posted at PerlStalker’s Ramblings.